Ron Garrett

As the person who originally posted the opinion that began Jamie looking into this notion, I would refer you to Sigmund Freud's "Moses and Monotheism" for details. It is true that the the infancy tie in is only one aspect, but it is a key, I would even say foundational aspect.

I would also point out for those raising the objection that goddess worship would be the norm if infancy patterns were the driver, that we are finally seeing the need for mommy overcome the fear of daddy as Catholics wholesale turn to the worship and deification of Mary (who is Isis, Astarte, Hecate, Demeter, Diana, etc., etc.) Read Freud for yourselves. He doesn't have the whole puzzle, but I believe he has the key piece without which the rest does not come together.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

nixon

This was meant to stay simple, but alas it cannot. Please bear with me. And of course let me know if I am full of sh*t.

All infants start off with no reasoning ability. As people grow up, they learn to reason. It is not an instinct, and if not taught, will not be learned. I think that most people never develop the ability to reason fully. I think this is because there are few teachers of this valuable skill. I know I never had a course in my school on how to reason. Instead they taught us other things while expecting the reason to manifest on it's own. This is a very common idea that the ability to reason will just "happen" on it's own as we grow up, but that's not guaranteed.

The ability to reason is learned as a result of a much simpler built-in instinct that humans (And animals to a simpler degree) have: Getting what they want.

It starts with simple things such as food, drink, attention, stopping physical pain. And then grows into more sophisticated things like getting toys, eating favorite foods, or avoiding going to bed because it's more fun to be up. Then even later, social acceptance, sex, and the ability to be independent.

A fully mature reasoning adult has learned that not only they want what they can get, but so does everyone else. (At least healthy people without inferiority complexes or who were trained to be emotional or physical slaves. I can deal with this subject later in the thread if needed.) Since everyone cannot always get what they want (For instance two men want the same woman who will not have both of them), the ability to reason becomes the least painful way to solve such problems. Instead of battling (and killing) one another to get what we want, we use a series of complex rules to decide such issues. Things considered by the reasonable person is who has the greater need to the object of want. If the object is a person, what is their take on this. Do they even want to be wanted (And taken). Maybe one of the persons has been denied their want longer than the other(s). There are a myriad of complex methods of determining who gets what wants met. The ability to reason keeps it as painless as possible for all. The reasonable adult understands the concept that "What hurts me hurts others too." And translates the desire to avoid pain into the will to avoid causing pain. This is seen as a way to avoid pain.

Let's look at it from the other end. Reasoning is a form of growing up to be able to look at things dispassionately and make decisions without anger or fear playing a part.

For example, how many times have you seen someone spank their kid in anger when they did something wrong? Now I believe that spanking has it's place; mainly as a way to let the kid know this particular behavior is worse than other bad behaviors. Whether it's because the behavior causes a physical danger to the child (Best reason), danger to other people, or heavy property damage. Spanking should be used sparingly so the child doesn't develop a tolerance for or expectation of getting spanked. It should not be used in anger. Doing that is only using it as an aggression release for the parent. Punch the wall, not the kid if you want to do that.

A child should also know what the bad behavior was. Too many people have an annoying habit of punishing (especially really little) kids long after the behavior. Remember they come into the world with no reasoning ability. Along with the ability to reason comes time sense. If you wait too long to punish your kid, they have no idea what they are being punished for. This could cause the child to stop doing whatever behavior they were doing at the time of punishment. If this was good behavior, they could learn to stop that and substitute some other (maybe bad) behavior in it's place. As they get older, you can wait longer between offense and punishment, but I wouldn't recommend it because then instead of causing confusion, the kid (Especially teenagers) may take it as a sign of weakness on your part. They may figure that for whatever reason, you are not capable of disiplining them

Now since we have so many people raising kids who haven't fully matured themselves, we can expect the results of their child rearing to be less than ideal. And thus the cycle of failure is born.

One of the early signs of that failure is that authoritarianism rears it's ugly head. This is because so many people have no idea of any other ways to make people do what they want. And remember that is what we all want to do: Make others do what we want. If you're really good at it, you'll make them like doing what you want. This is the power of persuasion. If you're not so good at persuading, you may be tempted to use authoritarian methods to gain compliance. (The hall monitor comes to mind since they have no respect given to them at all. They live and die [figuratively of course] by the whim of the authority [school staff]. Of course most peoples egos do not permit them to take orders (Real or virtual) from those they perceive as inferior to them. Hence is born...The con game. To cause people to think that certain others are superior to them. Even when there is no basis such thinking. Government is founded on this principle, as is Religion. In government, the idea is that everyone wil think the government superior to the average person and thus will obey. Even American government was designed with the idea that some people are superior to others. And our society today reflects this. For instance even though our government failed to protect Americans miserably on September 11th, more people than ever trust in government to protect them. More politicians are exposed as crooks every year. This is so bad, that people even laugh about it andmake jokes. But it's an uneasy, unwilling hollow laughter. People have successfully been trained to believe that government people are smarter, kinder, and generally more trustworthy than the average person. So much so that when the evidence suggests the opposite, people still don't waver in their beliefs. Religion is simply a grandious step up governments virtual immunity from prosecution by virtue of superior people to the concept of a superior person that is actually larger than life. One cannot hope to become superior to, or even equal to the religious idol. In religion, there is always something or someone better than you that you are expected to obey (Or obey the religious representatives since the actual superior being is never present in this world.) In religion, people have the comfort that those who hurt them that even government cannot revenge against, God will. People who believe in religions often say that their religion is peaceful, but this is belied by the high numbers of those who believe that God (Or spirits, devils, the reincarnation guru's, etc...) will get those who cannot be revenged against in this life. This "worship" of a superior object/persona is also a large reason high numbers of people follow religions that promise a hell for those who don't follow that religion. Remember most people feel the need to look up to those they think are superior to them. When the superior object (God) says you'll be in hell otherwise, and you've been trained to obey superiors without question, you'll believe in this authority too without question. And just as politicians can succeed year after year even if they don't deliver their promises, so religions succeed even though the promise cannot be delivered until one is dead. (And of course unable to verify if they have attained it.)

And now my message to YOU:

With reason is freethought. When you have the ability to question the percieved superiors, you may see that they are not superior at all. When that happens, worlds will open up for you.

For now you are free to think about anything without fear of self condemnation.

The worst enemy one can have is himself.

With reason, one can be friends with himself without fear.

DRFseven

This is attachment theory and it is a survival mechanism apparent, not only in humans, but in other primates. I agree that it is very important in the human propensity toward religion, along with another key primate social strategy - the power hierarchy. I think the way these mechanisms, heirarchies and attachment, work in regard to religious behavior in humans is that religion is a social artifact, athropomorphic in nature, that developed as a by-product of other necessary social developments, such as cultural transmission of learning and the rewards of ever-more complex social interaction. But let us also not forget the importance of pattern recognition in the development of superstition!

hinduwoman

But what about what the parents themselves teach? If they tell stories about a god and empahsize that this is true, then the infant would automatically accept it as true.

DRFseven

Yes, but how did the idea of anthropomorphic gods come to be such a hot item on the cultural menu? Why associate gods with attitudes, passions such as love and hate, and relationships in the first place? Saying we learn what to think from our parents doesn't explain how those ideas came to be accepted as proper cultural transmission in the first place.

Lasseman

I am certainly no expert in this, but an idea presents itself: Ancestor worship.
It is consistent with the basic idea here, as you actually worship the parents and grandparent all the way up to the most ancient founders of your tribe.
During our cultural development, this idea of men as god or gods as men has stuck.
Just my two cents.

DRFseven

Yeah, I was asking a rhetorical question. I think the evolutionary dynamics that resulted in our attachment and mimicking capacities, also resulted in the establishment of social artifacts that exploited those tendencies, such as anthropological religions and the adaption of chiefs.